Some topics tend to get heated and go off track in unwholesome ways quite quickly. The "hot topics" sub-forum is a place where such topics may be moved so that each post must be manually approved by moderator before it will become visible to members.

Dhammabodhi wrote:I only meant eradication for those who keep the relevant precepts, i.e. monks and laity who decide to abstain completely from any sexual activity. Surely for these people it would be quite a bother to have to "see", time and again, the temptations that they want to get away from(related question: is it possible to just "observe" dreams)?

This is something that nearly all monks have to face in some point of their monastic career. The sanghadisesa rule states that there has to be an intention to masturbate in to make it an offense. Many monks have wet dreams when they indulge in some types of food or drink, like cheese or coffee in the afternoon. This is an individual thing, that one has to know for oneself. It is very important to pay attention to food if you want to keep celibacy. Also there has to be sense restraint. This not an easy practice to do well.

Tan Ajahn Pannavaddho said that contemplating the body as asubha helps to keep the females away in dreams and in real life. it's by far the most effective way to reduce lust. The contemplation has to be done with wisdom.

tiltbillings wrote:However, if a hindrance does not have a set unchanging nature, it does not necessarily have to hinder anything.

I may not be properly understanding what you're saying here. Can you provide a sutta or commentarial or other authoritative reference that reflects the notion that a hinderance does necessarily hinder. I keep on thinking about the view expressed by Arittha as told in the Alagaddupama Sutta. Of course I realize you're not espousing that view, but to me it sounds the same, so I must not be understanding you correctly.

Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,But never soddens what is open;Uncover, then, what is concealed,Lest it be soddened by the rain.

Tilt said: If a hindrance always hindered, you would never get free of it. A hindrance arises, a sensual thought arises, what happens?

For anyone not yet of perfect Sila ~ the odds are that you grasp it, get lost in day dreaming, perform unwholesome actions and thereby strengthen the underlying tendency to colour your thinking with greed and lust via the serial story playing on all forty-seven channels. These channels have the two things in common. They never go off the air, and they all have the same lead actor ... the 'so precious' I. Additionally, imbedded in the story are the justifications and excuses (some quite sophisticated) for the intentional actions of thought, word and deed, and their continuance.

mettaChris

---The trouble is that you think you have time------Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe------It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

A hinderance is not a basis for upaya. That might be the view in a different tradition (maybe). I'm pretty sure that in this tradition, however, if you are mindful of a hinderance, you recognize it's nature, which is dukkha, as well as anicca.

Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,But never soddens what is open;Uncover, then, what is concealed,Lest it be soddened by the rain.

A hinderance is not a basis for upaya. That might be the view in a different tradition (maybe). I'm pretty sure that in this tradition, however, if you are mindful of a hinderance, you recognize it's nature, which is dukkha, as well as anicca.

I don't think Tilt is suggesting that it can be an upaya. What is more often claimed in some Theravadin circles is that there can be mindfulness of a hindrance while the hindrance is present. But to claim this is to claim that there can be beautiful mental factors and unwholesome mental factors arising with one and the same citta.

This would be possible according to the Sarvastivada Abhidharma, which treats mindfulness as an ethically variable mental factor, but not according to Theravada Abhidhamma (nor in reality) where sati is invariably a beautiful mental factor and hindrances invariably hinder its arising.

A hinderance is not a basis for upaya. That might be the view in a different tradition (maybe). I'm pretty sure that in this tradition, however, if you are mindful of a hinderance, you recognize it's nature, which is dukkha, as well as anicca.

I don't think Tilt is suggesting that it can be an upaya. What is more often claimed in some Theravadin circles is that there can be mindfulness of a hindrance while the hindrance is present. But to claim this is to claim that there can be beautiful mental factors and unwholesome mental factors arising with one and the same citta.

I am not much worried about the Abhidhamma analysis, but I would say that one follows the other. It can be kind of a back and forth, though does not quite capture the dynamic nature of it. One can sit with mindfulness, watching the rise and fall of mental events, which can include lust. If we cannot be mindful of an unwholesome state of mind, we are lost.

Herein, monks, a monk knows the consciousness with lust, as with lust; the consciousness without lust . . . Herein, monks, when sense-desire is present, a monk knows, "There is sense-desire in me," or when sense-desire is not present, he knows, "There is no sense-desire in me." He knows how the arising of the non-arisen sense-desire comes to be; he knows how the abandoning of the arisen sense-desire comes to be; and he knows how the non-arising in the future of the abandoned sense-desire comes to be. - MN 10

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

Tilt quoted: ...monk knows the consciousness with lust, as with lust; the consciousness without lust . . . Herein, monks, when sense-desire is present, a monk knows, "There is sense-desire in me

As this is the Masturbation what's wrong? thread. Are you maintaining that one can happily masturbate while thinking "there is lust in me" "there is sense-desire in me" and it is O.K. because you are mindful?

mettaChris

---The trouble is that you think you have time------Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe------It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

Tilt quoted: ...monk knows the consciousness with lust, as with lust; the consciousness without lust . . . Herein, monks, when sense-desire is present, a monk knows, "There is sense-desire in me

As this is the Masturbation what's wrong? thread. Are you maintaining that one can happily masturbate while thinking "there is lust in me" "there is sense-desire in me" and it is O.K. because you are mindful?

That might be an interesting thing to try.

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.People live in one another’s shelter.

Macavity wrote:This would be possible according to the Sarvastivada Abhidharma, which treats mindfulness as an ethically variable mental factor, but not according to Theravada Abhidhamma (nor in reality) where sati is invariably a beautiful mental factor and hindrances invariably hinder its arising.

Macavity wrote:This would be possible according to the Sarvastivada Abhidharma, which treats mindfulness as an ethically variable mental factor, but not according to Theravada Abhidhamma (nor in reality) where sati is invariably a beautiful mental factor and hindrances invariably hinder its arising.

So I've always assumed this was an instruction for contemplation practice. Regardless, if one understands mind affected by lust as mind affected by lust, and if one understands mind unaffected by lust as mind unaffected by lust, then I personally don't see how a person could come to this conclusion:

tiltbillings wrote:... if a hinderance does not have a set unchanging nature, it does not necessarily have to hinder anything.

Because that statement seems to contradict the whole notion of MN 10, which states that one understands mind affected by lust as mind affected by lust.

Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,But never soddens what is open;Uncover, then, what is concealed,Lest it be soddened by the rain.